GWD-6-20以前没人问过

bloodymica

以下是引用blackhorse在2004-8-17 22:30:00的发言：

Q20:

Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings, Levaska’s government introduced special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.  Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government’s plan is obviously working.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

1. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.
2. Workers in Levaska who already save money in long-term tax-free accounts that are offered through their workplace cannot take advantage of the special savings accounts introduced by the government.
3. The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder.
4. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.
5. Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced.

答案：D。有点不明白。感觉D是支持呀。为什么不选A？

题目明白了，可是从来就没看懂C到底是什么意思……谁能帮我解释一下~~

挥着猪翅膀

actually, D gives a possible alternative factor that undermine the argument.

Besides, it's simple for u to get the right answer by excluding those irrelevant choices.

zhaoyak7

D没有问题，但偶再较一下真儿：题干说存够了才行，而很多人不停地从这个帐户中拿钱,不也削弱了结论吗,即"这个帐户"对增加储蓄没有作用?

A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.

stexms

the object of the plan is to increase the amount of maney the citizens of Levaska deposit into the bank account, so wether the plan is working is based on wether the deposit has increased.

shirley8707

ppjelly

    

Five years ago, as part of a plan to
encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into
savings, Levaska’s government introduced special savings accounts in which up
to $3,000 a year can be
saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the
account holder reaches the age of sixty-five. 
Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the
government’s plan is obviously working.
Which of the following, if true, most
seriously weakens the argument?
A.A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some
     of the money they had invested in the special accounts.

偶也错选了A，在仔细分析一下，估计选A的人是像我这么想的，存钱并且保持一段时间才是银行赢利的充分必要条件。政府要求超过$3000在65岁之前不要取出，如果我们认为这是此项计划成功的一个必要条件，那么A说取出了是不是就破坏了这个条件呢？其实不是，请注意看A说有相当一部分人取了一些钱出来，可是没说这些人没到65岁啊！所以即使有人取钱了，也不一定破坏了政府的要求“65岁之前不能取出”。所以比较一下D更万无一失的正确，所以选D：）

meixu11

解答相当清晰~    谢谢斑竹~   ：）

也不知道斑竹现在会不会常回来看看呀~    ：）

zhengjingzhe

up

Journal

以下是引用ppjelly在2008/5/10 23:12:00的发言：

 

Five years ago, as part of a plan to
encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into
savings, Levaska’s government introduced special savings accounts in which up
to $3,000 a year can be
saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the
account holder reaches the age of sixty-five. 
Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the
government’s plan is obviously working.
Which of the following, if true, most
seriously weakens the argument?
A.A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some
     of the money they had invested in the special accounts.

偶也错选了A，在仔细分析一下，估计选A的人是像我这么想的，存钱并且保持一段时间才是银行赢利的充分必要条件。政府要求超过$3000在65岁之前不要取出，如果我们认为这是此项计划成功的一个必要条件，那么A说取出了是不是就破坏了这个条件呢？其实不是，请注意看A说有相当一部分人取了一些钱出来，可是没说这些人没到65岁啊！所以即使有人取钱了，也不一定破坏了政府的要求“65岁之前不能取出”。所以比较一下D更万无一失的正确，所以选D：）

先谢谢！ 可是我在另外一个帖子里面说D里面的Many  L. who already... 的many 不足为据因为要的是weaken而不是deny。也就是我们就算假设只有10个人也是一种weaken,我可以理解。

如果同样放到A来说就算只有10个人把钱放进去又拿出来，这并没有达到increase the saving amt的效果啊？也算是一种weaken 他们有没有超过65岁，没说超过65，也没说少于65. . 我还是没有办法理解

sherry树丛

我觉得A错，是因为即使大部分的人把原来存的钱又给取了出来，但我们不能排除一种情况就是另外一部分人所投的钱要比所取出的钱多的多，如果按照这种情况发展的话，那么A就达不倒weaken 的效果了。
请指正。